Per Hon’ble Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal filed by the original opponent/Canara Bank against the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.112/2008 decided on 08/03/2010. By the said judgement and award, forum while allowing the complaint directed opponent to pay to the complainant interest @ 9.5% p.a. on `2,25,00,000/- from the date of deposit till its premature withdrawal on 30/07/2007 and to credit the said amount of interest in the account of the complainant within two months from receipt of the order. As such, Canara Bank has taken strong exception to the award passed by the District Forum while filing this appeal. Facts lie in narrow compass:-
Complainant filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of Canara Bank. According to complainant he had three fixed deposit receipts each of the value of `75 lakhs. Those three deposits were kept for the period of 12 months. From the date of deposit i.e. from 12/04/2007, according to complainant, on those deposits he was entitled to get interest @ 9.5% p.a. He pleaded that he had borrowed loan of `2 Crores by pledging aforesaid three deposits with the opponent bank. The entire loan was repaid by the complainant together with interest by 30/07/2007. The Bank had charged him interest @ 11.5% p.a. Said interest was duly paid by the complainant on 30/07/2007. On following day i.e. 31/07/2007, an amount of `2,25,00,000/- only was deposited in the account of the complainant. But bank had not paid any interest at the agreed rate of 9.5% p.a. on those deposits. Objection raised by him about non payment of interest @ 9.5% p.a. was turned down by the bank and, therefore, he filed consumer complaint claiming interest @ 9.5% p.a. from 01/08/2007 till filing of the complaint.
Canara Bank contested the matter by filing written version. Bank denied that the complainant is a consumer. Bank admitted that complainant had deposited an amount of `2,25,00,000/- for a period of 12 months from 12/04/2007. The said deposits were prematurely encashed by the complainant on 30/07/2007. Bank also admitted that the complainant had borrowed loan of an amount of `2 crores against those three deposit receipts. The complainant had paid the loan together with interest on 30/07/2007. Bank however contended that the complainant had deposited the said amount under the Can Centenary Deposit Scheme in three deposit receipts. Said scheme was initiated on account of completion of 100 years of banking services by the Canara Bank. Terms and conditions were there for the said Scheme, which were binding on the complainant. Deposits kept under the said Scheme were to carry interest @ 9.5% p.a. and that Scheme was to be operated for a period of one year only. Bank pleaded that deposits scheme did not however permit premature closure of those deposits during the period of 12 months and in the event, depositor wanted to close the Scheme prematurely, the depositors were not entitled to claim any interest under the said scheme. The Scheme provided that depositors were only entitled to claim the amount under the deposit receipt if kept for 12 months. The bank pleaded that since complainant had prematurely withdrawn said deposits, his account was credited with the amount of `2,25,00,000/- covering three deposits without any interest. So bank pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with costs.
Forum however was of the view that the deposits were kept by the complainant at the agreed rate of interest of 9.5% p.a. The deposits were with the bank from 12/04/2007 till 30/07/2007. After fixed deposit receipts were withdrawn prematurely, it was the case of the complainant that he should have been paid interest @ 9.5% p.a. on the amount of `2,25,00,000/-. Forum agreed with the contention of the complainant and directed bank to calculate interest @ 9.5% p.a. on the amount of `2,25,00,000/- from the date of deposit i.e. 12/04/2007 till its premature withdrawal by the complainant on 30/07/2007. Aggrieved by this order bank filed this appeal.
We heard Mr.P.A.Saratkar-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Narendra Jadhav-Advocate for the respondent.
We are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is per se bad in law and cannot be allowed to sustain in law. What is pertinent to note is that the said deposits were kept with Canara Bank by the complainant with express condition that the interest would be payable only if the said deposits were kept for a period of one year and it is not withdrawn prematurely. In case it is withdrawn prematurely, interest was not payable on the said deposits. Bank informed the complainant that interest on those deposits could not be paid since there was premature withdrawal of the deposits by him. Had he kept the deposits for a period of 12 months, from the date of deposits he would have earned interest @ 9.5% p.a. The Bank has relied upon Exhibit F & Exhibit G, Circulars issued for the purpose of initiating Can Centenary Deposit Scheme. The Circulars are dated 12/03/2007 & 19/07/2007. Circular dated 19/07/2007 clearly mentioned that deposits kept under Canara Centenary Deposit Scheme could be closed before maturity but while permitting premature closure of the deposits, no interest would be payable for the period run. It was further clarified that deposits under Canara Centenary Deposit Scheme closed before maturity will not be entitled to any interest for the period run. Initially these deposits were issued without permitting closure of deposit before maturity, but then looking to the difficulties faced by the depositors, Canara Bank issued Circular dated 19/07/2007 and permitted premature withdrawal of deposits under Canara Centenary Deposit Scheme provided the depositors would not be entitled to any interest for the period run. This being the policy decision, Canara Bank permitted respondent to prematurely withdraw the fixed deposit amounts pertaining to three fixed deposits each of `75 lakhs before its maturity date. But since it was premature withdrawal of deposits, no interest was paid to the depositor /respondent herein. Said stand taken by the Canara Bank is appearing to be just and proper and we find that the grave error is committed by the Ld. District Forum in awarding interest @ 9.5% p.a. to the respondent on the three deposits for the period during which he had kept three deposits in the Canara Centenary Deposit Scheme. We reiterate that since it was premature withdrawal of monies by the respondent, no interest was payable as per policy of the Canara Bank/appellant herein. So award passed by the District Forum in favour of respondent is bad in law and cannot be allowed to sustain in law. Hence appeal will have to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order passed in consumer complaint no.112/2008. Hence the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Impugned judgement and award dated 08/03/2010 passed by the District Forum, Pune is quashed and set aside.
Consumer complaint stands dismissed.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 2nd February, 2012.
